JOURNAL of Humanities, Culture and Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2018 ISSN 2393 – 5960; ISSN – L 2393-5960, pp. 10-25

wo conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu1 T

Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu, Ph.D.c.

Counsellor, Romanian National Archives, Dolj County Department [email protected]

Abstract In the present study we approach the activity of Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu, two of Dolj County prefects from the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century. Two conservatives, whose activity was focused on the supporting of the rural education and culture, they also considered that the issue on addressing the modernisation of Romania could be accomplished only through the education of the rural population and the improvement of the living conditions (Coord. Acad. Gheorghe Platon: 2003: 191-207). The building of schools and hospitals, the spreading of culture through education and the learning of minimal hygiene norms were few of the objectives of the two conservative prefects, who supported financially, from the budget of the county, the construction of schools and hospitals, along with the reorganisation of the Superior Trade School, where the children from the rural areas were obtaining high qualificationforms. Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu filled the position of prefect in Dolj County, between the 12th of April 1899 and the 14th of February 1901, respectively the 24th of December 1904 and the 12th of March 1907. Keywords: activity, prefect, Dolj, Guran, Geblescu.

1 The present study is part of the doctor degree research project: The institution of the prefect in Dolj County, during the reign of Carol I, carried outbetween 2015 and 2018, within the Social Sciences Faculty. Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 11

Nicolae P. Guran (12th of April 1899 – the 14th of February 1901) Nicolae P. Guran (b. February 18 1860) (S.J.A.N, file 24/1860: f. 2) was born in a family of craftsmen and traders from . The son of Petrache andEleneiGuran, he attended the primary and secondary courses in Craiova (Coord. Mariana Leferman, Gabriela Braun, Adrian Năstase, 2005: 158), and in 1878, he got his bachelor degree at (Petre Ghiăcioiu, 1905: 59). He finished his studies at Paris, where he obtained his licence degree in law, in 1866 (Petre Ghiăcioiu: 1905, p. 59; George Mil. Demetrescu, text and postface by Bianca Maria Carmen Predescu, 2015: 148). On the 26th of March 1888, he applied for the registering in Dolj Bar Association (George Mil. Demetrescu, text and postface by Bianca Maria Carmen Predescu: 2015: 113), having his application approved. During 1895 and 1899, he was a designated member of the Council of Discipline (George Mil. Demetrescu, text and postface by Bianca Maria Carmen Predescu, 2015: 128) of Dolj Bar Association, a position from which he resigned after his friend had been appointed prefect of Dolj County (“Voinţa naţională”, 1899: 1). After his appointing as head of the county administration, Nicolae P. Guran went in many inspections in the communes from Dolj County, visits that allowed him to establish the exact needs of the population. His activity in the territory was remarked even by King Carol I, who received him in a 40 audience on the 17th of June 1899(Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 24.). Fulfilling his attributions provisioned by the laws, the prefect drafted, in October 1899, a report, on addressing the situation of the county, in which he included all the aspects of the social, economic and cultural life, met or remarked in the administrative-territorial units that he was coordinating. Thus, as regarding the administrative side of the county2, the prefect was showing that there were 5 administrative circumscriptions in his subordination– plase, which made 157 rural communes made of 217 hamlets and an urban commune (), with a population of 311,036 dwellers, among which 159,343 men and 151, 693 women. In the administrative area, the prefect thought it was necessary the re-establishing the capitals of each administrative department, in the central communes (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 4).

2 The presented situations do not offer information on addressing the city of Craiova, due to the fact that this urban commune was subordinated and reported its situation directly to the County Council. 12 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu

He brought the agricultural situation under the attention of the County Council counsellors and president, remarking: “only a part of the crops from the fall of 1898 and the spring of 1899 can be considered less than satisfying, on another piece of land there was not produced anything, the cause being the draught that came upon us”(Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 5). Moreover, the head of the county administration was of the opinion that the lack of the variety of crops was not only irrational, from the scientific point of view (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 7), but also dangerous, from the economic regard (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 6), mentioning that there should be imposed a regulation that would obligate each dweller to grow a part of the land they own, with flax seeds, hemp, beetroot or fodder plants, and the crops to be established according to the nature of the soil (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 6). Furthermore, the prefect was mentioning that “concerned with the state of the things that menace to bring hunger among the rural population, the government and county counsellor approved the necessary means that would help the dwellers who would lack food”(Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 6), a loan of 400,000 lei, and the government awarded for Dolj County, from the fund of Carol-Elisabeta settlement 3,000 hectolitres of corn, which were distributed freely to the needy ones (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 6). On addressing the public hygiene and health, in the report for the prefect, the main doctor from the county was concluding that, subsequently to the checking he carried out on his on in the territory, the rural population had not been affected by epidemics, the health state was a relatively good one, and in some communes the conditions of hygiene and salubrity were appreciated as being bad. The same doctor was appreciating that there was the duty of the county to take urgent sanitation measures (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 7) of the ponds from certain communes of the county, works that needed to be made through the Technical Service, a department that charged with the identification of the means of execution and cost. In the same report, doctor Drăgescu was reporting that: the medical doctors who worked for this county department performed 1,912 inspections in the communes from their suborder, provided medical services, at the domicile of 24,907 ill people, and in the hospitals from Filiaşi andBechet there were treated 831 ill people, among which 545 were cured, 12 of them passed away, and for the rest their health condition was improved (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 8). In the report, there were also mentioned and medical care that the patients enjoyed, in the Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 13 hospitals from Craiova, Calafat andBăileşti, 8,675 of them (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 9). Presenting the accomplishments from the sanitary area, Nicolae P. Guran was mentioning that, during 1899, the County Hospital of Filiaşi was installed in a new building, but the institution lacked furniture, an area for contagious and ophthalmological diseases, sections that needed to be created (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 8). Moreover, the prefect was reminding the Council that, for the inauguration of the hospital under construction from the commune of Brabova3, there was necessary the allocation, from the county budget, the sums necessary for furniture, bedlinen and medical instruments (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 8), but it was also extremely necessary to be “provisioned” money for: the supplying of the portable pharmacies of the doctors, for free consults, for fighting against different epidemics, for the sanitation works, in the communes that lacked financial means (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 8). Approaching the subject of culture, Guran was remarking that, it is as obsolete as in the previous years, and the progress is a very slow and insignificant one. On addressing the cult of the population, the protoereuof Dolj County was appreciating that, in 1899: “the total number of the churches is of 267, among which 183 parishes, and the rest are 84 associated churches” (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 8). There were excluded from this reportthe churches from the urban communes. From the total number of the churches, 4 were under construction, 19 were closed, being in an advanced state of degradation. Practically, there were only 244 functional churches, in which 166 priests, graduates of the 1st degree seminar, three 2nd degree graduates, 20 supernumerary priests and 338 were carrying out their activity psalm readers (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 13). When concluding on the situation presented by the Deanery of the county, there could be noticed the following: in many of the communes from the county there were no churches; many of these were in an advanced state of degradation; there were churches without the priests that would officiate the masses (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 13). Considering that, only through education, the condition of the man from the countryside could be improved, the prefect of the county supported and took measures that would lead to the modernisation of the educational process, and the increasing of school attendance. From the presented report of the school reviser, once with the opening of the

3 The hospital from the Commune of was built on the land donated by Constantinn Radun Geblescu, future prefect. 14 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu ordinary session, from the 15th of October 1899, we find out that, during the school year (1898-1899), in Dolj County, there functioned 199 rural schools. In 5 of them, there were sent 4 primary-school teachers, at 39 of them there were 2 primary-school teachers for each, and in 144 of them there was only one primary-school teacher, the rest of them having substitute teachers. Furthermore, from the presentation of the reviser, there could be noticed that, from the 43,112 school-aged students, there were registered only 15,300, which was not even half of them. On addressing the situation of the new schools, there was announced the adopting of measures that, in 13 of the communes, would be built new constructions, and, in the other cases, works of repairing would be performed, but within the allocated budget (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 14). Within the ordinary meeting, from the 15th of October, there was brought forward the issue of founding, in the county, of vocational schools. There was therefore considered the fact that the population of the county was increasing annually with 5,000 people, and the from the report of the Trade School from Craiova there could be seen that it was attended by 60 “internal” students and 70 “external” students (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 33). In the same report, the headmaster of the Trade School was mentioning that there were imposed improvements, among which, several are further presented: the radical repairing of the steam engine, the replacing of all the tools from the forge and the mechanic workshops, the installing of several machines in the carpentry workshop, the increasing of the space that had become insufficient, new employees, and a new reorganisation, which would fulfil the purpose for which it had been founded (Nicolae P. Guran, 1899: 33). Starting from the findings made in the inspections, the prefect of the county showed a special importance on the improvement of the conditions in which the rural education was carried out, along with the situation of the students, due to which he founded several philanthropic societies (S.J.A.N. DOLJ, file 56/1899: 13), whose purpose was that to collect money. From the sums there were collected, there were to be bought clothes and books for the poor children, and to be founded school canteens (S.J.A.N. DOLJ, file 56/1899: 57). Assessing the carried out activity and analysing the reports of the sub-prefects (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 84/1899: 1-12), the prefect of Dolj County was appreciating that the state of the town-hall buildings were no better than that of the schools, in very few communes there were hygienic and spacious constructions, especially built for the public administration (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 84/1899: 48), and the cause of this Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 15 situation was determined by: the lack of the financial resources. Presenting the situation of the telegraphic and telephonic stations, Nicolae P. Guran was mentioning that: the county had only five telephonic stations in the communes of Calafat, Cetate, Bistreţ, and Filiaşi, and there were two districts that did not have access to the telephonic network. Identifying the needs of the population from the county, along with the social-economic and cultural situation of the county, after the first year of activity, as representative of the government in the territory, Nicolae P. Guran established as priority objectives the reorganisation of the Superior Trade School from Craiova, the founding of charities (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 97/1900: 36), the planting of orchards and vineyards, the revitalisation of beekeeping, the creating of experimental plots within schools (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 260/1900: 5-8). On the occasion of the opening session for the ordinary meeting of the County council, from the 15th of October 1900, Dolj County prefect was reporting: “The difficult condition in which I found the finances from this county, united with the economic crisis that all the country is experiencing, have represented an obstacle, since the beginning, in carrying out a lot of works and improvement plans, whose execution has been long desired, by the entire population of the county. The building of a metallic bridge at Bucovăţ, and other fixed ones over the rivers , and Desnăţui; the replacing of the wooden foot-bridges on the roads of the county with bridges made of stone, brick or concrete; the help given to the poor communes for building churches, schools and town-halls, the founding of a vocational farming school, and several farms as a model, the creation of nurseries for the replanting of vineyards and the spreading of fruit-bearing trees; the building of an administrative palace and the places necessary for the sub-prefects, gendarmerie and the other authorities from the county, the draining of the ponds, the building of hospitals (…) must be yet postponed, until the economic situation from the county improves, through the paying back of the loans. Due to this very precarious condition we are finding ourselves, we therefore had to restraint our activity, or to limit it to only those measures that, requiring but small money sacrifices, still represent certain improvements in the condition of the administrative and economic condition from the district” (Nicolae P. Guran, 1900: 3). Thus, starting from his personal objectives, Nicolae P. Guran, addressing to the counsellors and the president of the County Council, was mentioning: “In order to give an economic impulse to our population and to improve a state of things, which you describe as unsatisfactory, 16 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu we have reorganised completely the Trade School, elaborating a regulation, and it was later voted by this Honourable Council and approved entirely by the Ministry in charge. Owing to this organisation, we hope, that over the years, our rural communes to remove the foreign craftsmen and to have, each, a workshop that can become the centre of a small industry”(Nicolae P. Guran, 1900: 3). Supporting the School and the dwellers from the rural areas, the head of the county administration took, as a measure for revitalising the beekeeping, the construction of 159 beehives, which were to be divided among the communes of the county (Nicolae P. Guran, 1900: 4). Among the taken measures, there was that for the opening, in Craiova, in Vernon houses, which belonged to the county, a permanent exhibition with sale, in which there were exhibited the works created in the Trade School, in the rural schools or made by the dwellers of the county, the price being returned to the exhibitors, after which a small amount was to be kept, which would cover the expenses with the payment of the staff, responsible with the exhibition (Nicolae P. Guran, 1900:4). The idea of the exhibition was argued through the fact that “gathering in one place samples from everything is produced in the county, on one side, the public and the traders will be able to know better the resources that the county has, and will also be able to purchase from here a lot of objects, and, on the other side, , the Trade school, the small workshops with handmade products within the rural schools and most of the population of the county will have the possibility to create some income which so far they have not be provided with” (Nicolae P. Guran, 1900: 4). Starting from the same purpose, the assuring of income, with the support of the school reviser, from the initiative of the prefect, there were founded economy societies S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 97/1900: 3) in the communes of: Poiana4, Bârca, Pleniţa, Tencănău, Băileşti, Cetate, Risipiţi and Giurgiţa, their capital reaching, in October 1900 – 31, 260 lei. These societies actually represented small credit institutions that with the purpose, on one side to save the population from usurers, and, on the other side, to implement the notion of order and economy, in order to make the society evolve. In order to make the activities from the countryside diverse, Guran considered necessary the founding of a gardening school in Băileşti,, the creation of an American vine nursery in Pleniţa and the buying of fruit-bearing trees, which were distributed in the communes

4 The society from Pleniţa was founded on the 24th of May 1900. Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 17 of the county, moreover, for the familiarisation of the children with different agriculture cultures, the county administration took the necessary measures that, next to schools to be arranged experimental plots for gardening, fruit-bearing trees and fodder plants. Trying to support the frequent school attendance of the students, the prefect of the county took the initiative to found, in each commune, a charity, with the purpose to collect money for the supporting of the children who lacked financial possibilities that would allow them to go to school (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 61/1900: 98). Starting from this personal objective, the prefect of Dolj county was reporting to the president of the County Council that, from the funds collected from charities, “almost 250 poor pupils have been provided with clothes, and 7 school canteens have been supplied with food during the winter, among which 4 with a boarding schools, 132 pupils being helped in this way”(S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 61/1900: 98). In the same report, presented in the opening session of the ordinary meeting from the 16th of October 1900, the representative of the government in Dolj County was appreciating that there was ensured a better connection between the commune and county administration, arguing that this is due to the fact that there were created new phone stations in the communes of Cernele, , Predeşti, Pleşoiu, Terpeziţa, Sălcuţa and Vela (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 249/1900: 51-55) and there were to be finalised the works on the phone line between Craiova and Bechet, from which seven communes were to be connected (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 249/1900: 56). The prefect of the county was mentioning that, in order to support the rural population, to clean their houses and groom their gardens, there had been taken measures through which, in the budget of each commune, there have been provisioned the necessary amounts of money to buy lime, to resell it with the same price, and the yards to be paved with gravel. After retreating from the position of prefect, in February 1901 (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 323/1901: 4), Nicolae P. Guran occupied important public positions, both in the public and political life, until the end of his life (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2004: 213).

Constantin Radu Geblescu (24th of December 1904-12th of March 1907) Born in the locality of Gebleşti, the commune of , on the 1st of December 1869 (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 2/1869: 3), graduate of Carol I 18 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu

High-School, with a PhD in at Paris, Constantin Radu Geblescu5 enter policy on the 17th of February 1901, after resigning from the position of magistrate that he had had within Dolj Court, Section I (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 35). The young politician, registered in the Conservative Party, was, along with Alexandru Giulea, former liberal, Nicolae Murgăşanu, Mihail Oromolu, among the young valuable people, attracted by the party, in period in which the organisation was in opposition, to increase its influence, through the diminishing of the position held by “the boyars from the party”(Ion Bulei, 2000: 270). Active and intelligent, from a rich family in the county, the young Geblescu was a candidate for the elections from 1901 in the first Chamber College, along Nicolae Economu and Nicolae P. Guran, becoming famous through the speeches addressed to the electors and the articles published in the press (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 35-36). Disappointed with the result of the elections, from the 13th of March 1901, which brought the conservatives a new disillusion (“Adevărul”, 19 martie 1903: 1), in May, Constantin Radu Geblescu published a series of articles, in which he was advocating for the necessity of the electoral law reformation, meaning that he would argue for the changing of the corrupt morals (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 38-39). A consequence of the intensification of the fight against the liberal government, during 1902-1904, ConstantinRaduGeblescu was remarked through his intensive actions and the nationalist speeches, in which he was mentioning that: “since the liberal government took the power, they have made a lot of mistakes, especially financial ones, because they have not been enough combated, and today, when there is the possibility to have our nation broken, where the leaders of the national liberal party are trying to destroy the ramifications of the Romanian spirit (…) we shall prepare for the battle”(“Tribuna”, 26th of January 1902). After the falling of the government led by D. A. Sturdza, the mission of creating a new cabinet was given to George Gr. Cantacuzino (Ion Mamina & Ion Bulei, 1994: 115), the same who, at the end of November 1904, had asked the members of the party from Craiova “to close the ranks, that they would be not taken by surprise when taking the local level power” (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 49). After the forming of the Government, as its representative, in Dolj County, it was

5 Son of Răduţu Geblescu of 38 years old and of Caliopa, of 19 years old, farmers. Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 19 appointed Constantin Radu Geblescu (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 249/1905: 6), protégé of Take Ionescu. Immediately after his installing, on the 20th of January 1905, there took place, at Craiova, a public meeting, convoked by the conservatives for presenting their platform and for explaining the citizens the political situations before the elections that were to take place in February-March (“România Economică”, 23rd of January 1905: 3-4). These legislative elections brought an important victory for the local conservatives, but the usual incidents did not lack, a situation that would determine the liberals and the Junimea circle to sue Nicolae Economu and Constantin Radu Geblescu, the prefect of the county, to justice (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2005: 53). Due to the morals of those times, in the trial in which the leader of the conservatives and the prefect of the county were charged, the court considered there was no case to answer (“Alarm”, 20th of June 1905). By trying the implementing of the measures established in the platform, Geblescu was beginning the inspections in the communes, to identify the irregularities from the local administration, along with the needs of the dwellers, in order to support the local projects. On the occasion of an extraordinary meeting of the new County Council Bureau, which took place on the 20th of April 1905, the prefect of the county was subjecting to the approval of the counsellors that “between the 5th of February and the 8th of April, in the lack of the dissolved County Delegation, and as provisioned in art. 96 from the Law on the County Councils”, there were finished 198 works, among which 156 had as main object: approvals for the opening of credits in the rural communes, necessary for the providing of registers and printers for the offices; the replacement of some “broken insulators” on the railway; the buying of the ballots and ballot boxes; the buying of fire wood and materials necessary for schools; the payment of rents for the headquarters of certain institutions; the buying of archive cabinets, the payment of the staff expenses (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 43-48). The prefect was also mentioning, in the same report, that during the specified period of time, there were rejected several openings of credits, solicited by the communes from the county, he approved several documents for the Commune Provisory Commissions for the exchanging of plots, validation of elections, construction works, along with exclusions, revocations and replacing from their positions of several secretaries, in the communes from , Mălăeşti, Cârna, Calopăr, Sălcuţa, Bucovăţ, Moţăţei (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 43-48). In the same meeting, Geblescu brought forward that, having 20 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu the approval of the ministry of the internal affairs, he started the formalities for opening an extraordinary credit of 1,505 lei, money used for paying the subsistence and transport of the magistrates and clerks of the court, who assisted the elections for the County Council (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 55). Moreover, he was mentioning the fact that, from the extraordinary budget allocated for the roads, the expenses share remained, on the 1st of April 1905, 23, 303.40 lei, which might be used for works of draining “at the ponds around the Convenţiune boulevard, which have still remained opened, along with the ponds from the hamlet of Romaneşti”, for the increasing of the necessary amounts of money that could be used to rebuild some bridges, or for supplying with gravel (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 39). As consequence after the inspections in the communes of the county, in June 1905, the head of the county administration initiated the action of writing the monographs of the communes, soliciting all the people, in the address no. 11.146 to fill in a table that represented “the situation with all the details” (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 345-346), from all and each commune. Preoccupied with the ensuring of adequate conditions for the dwellers of the county, especially the ones affected by epidemics as cholera and malaria, but also to answer promptly the order of the internal ministry, in June 1905 too, Geblescu subjected the proposal to build a hospital in Pleniţa to the approval of the County Council. His proposal was voted, the construction of the hospital, on the land donated by the commune of Pleniţa, with an extraordinary approved expense, of 106,850 lei (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 210/1905: 149). Based on the information received from the communes, from the reports of the commune inspectors, and also the reports of the different services subordinated to the town-hall, Constatin Radu Geblescu presented, in the opening session of the ordinary meeting of the County Council, the situation from the county. Presenting the activity of the Prefect’s Office, the head of the administration from Dolj was mentioning that, according to the report from the archivist, that, within the institution, there were registered as entering 29,627 papers, and the exiting was for 23,243 works, all of them being constituted in 425 files (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 690), which meant that the activity increased, and it was almost impossible to solve everything on time. Thus, thanks to the very large number of solved works, there could be noticed the involvement of the institution in solving the urgent matters of the population. Speaking about the county, this time about the solving of the litigations, the archivist was reporting to the Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 21 prefect that, in 1905, the county solicitor had 44 trials for the county and 33 in which he represented the rural communes (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 691). By exposing the cultural and religious situation from the county, the prefect was mentioning that, on the territory of the county, there were 183 rural parishes, from which 182 were supported by the state, and the parish of Comoşteni that supported itself. The staff working in the 183 parishes was made of 172 priests, among which 22 were 2nd degree priests of the Seminar, and 150 were 1st degree Seminar priests, 9 of them were supernumerary priests and 355 were psalm readers. The number of the urban parishes was of 24, among which 22 in Craiova, with 3 branch churches, and 2 in Calafat. Among the churches of the urban parishes, 18 were subsidized by the communes in case; 2 of them had their estate: Saints Archangels, with the branch Saint John (Hera) and Mântuleasa, with the branch Saint Demetrius (Old), which was not yet functional, and four were foundations: Virgin Mary (Dudu), Holly Trinity, Saint Elijah and Saint Gheorghe (New) (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 672-673). By describing the situation of the Trade Superior School from Craiova, he was appreciating that it was remarkable that, with every year, the importance of the trades was increasing, especially among the population from the rural areas, and, in 1905, the courses were attended by 365 students (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 688-689). After analysing the health issue, the primary doctor of the county was remarking that the dwellers’ health condition was satisfactory, the population being able to enjoy medical care both at the domicile and in the four rural hospitals that were functioning in the localities of: Băileşti, Filiaşi, Brabova and Negoieşti. There was again brought forward the construction of a new hospital in Pleniţa (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 210/1905: 3), there was appreciated the support given for Madona Dudu Guardianship, for the support of that from Rojişte, there was discussed the founding of a small hospital for each district, motivating that only then there could be argued about a real help, in any moment, for the rural population (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 112/1905: 2). A result of these discussions could be observed in 1906, when the prefect, supported the auctions for the building of the hospital from Pleniţa. The auctions took place in January-February, the work being adjudicated on the day of February 6th 1906, by Otto C. Hasselman (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 210/1905: 141). For facilitating the transport between the communes, Constantin Radu Geblescu supported the opening of roads and the 22 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu closing of certain access routes, an example on this respect being the road that used to connect the communes of Breasta and Predeşti, which was classified as neighbouring street. After numerous debates, within the extraordinary meetings of the County Council, in November 1905, the prefect of the county was subjecting to the approval of the County Council the plan for the construction of a local railway, Between Craiova and Gruia, which would go through Dolj and Mehedinţi, and would connect Romania to the Adriatic See, through Serbia, and another narrow-gauge railway, between Craiova and Bechet (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 88). On the 13th of November 1905, the County Council voted the construction of the railway, but, nevertheless, the work was not made, although it represented the subjects of many other ulterior discussions (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 88). An adept of the idea that the modernisation of the society can be made only thorough education, the representative of the government in Dolj directed his attention towards the way in which the educational process would be carried out, in the rural areas. Thus, Geblescu was declaring that, based on the report drafted by the inspector of Vela Brabova district, that: “public instruction represents the most efficient guarantee of the primary and mandatory education for the dwellers, and it is nothing less than excellently performed; in all the schools, the primary-school teachers carry out their duty with enthusiasm and dedication, making all the efforts to keep up with the difficult and noble mission of forming the minds and souls of the next generation of peasants”(S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 44v). Moreover, exposing the situation of the school buildings to the county counsellors, the prefect was appreciating that they are in a deplorable condition, sometimes the buildings endangering the life of the students and teachers, due to the fact that the situation of the communes was not a good one (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 44v). Furthermore, he reminded that, in the county, there were functioning only 206 rural schools (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 58), whose courses are attended by 16,300 students. Analysing the activity of the special schools from the county, the school reviser was reporting to the prefect that: “it was a joy to see how the young people hurry to register to the courses of the agricultural school from and Sopot”, but he was also somehow surprised by the fact that: “the weaving workshop from Cetate, along with the other 21 schools with similar programme, founded in the communes, were far from serving their purpose”, arguing that there were two reasons: “these schools do not meet the necessities Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 23 of the population from the villages”, and “the people working there do not have the required training for teaching the knowledge from the curriculum successfully”(S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 242/1905: 58v). Answering the requests that came from the education representatives, the prefect of Dolj took measures that aimed at: the endowing with furniture of the schools, the reparations of the buildings where the schools were functioning, the paying for the expenses with the teachers and the books, the granting of subventions that would help the students (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 216/1906: 1-65). Approaching the issue of safety in the rural communes, the prefect was announced by the communal inspectors that: “public safety is not satisfactory, the night watch effectively missing” (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 217/1906: 62). Militating for the improvement of the existential conditions, but also appreciating the aesthetics, prefect Geblescu proposed for the debate of the County Council the project of buying the land and the houses of Iancu Pleşa, for the purpose of building the new Administrative Palace (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 284/1906: 3). Concomitantly with the proposal of buying the fields, there also took place the public competition for the building of the palace, but, ignoring the result, the prefect of the county designated Petre Antonescuas the architect (Nicolae Băbălău, Dinică Ciobotea, Ion Zarzără: 2004: 79-80). After the breaking of the revolts from 1907, on the same day, Cantacuzino Government renounced the leadership (“România Economică”:23rd of March 1907: 3-5), on the 12th of March 1907, Constantin Radu Geblescu forwarded his resignation, leaving Iancu Mitescu (S.J.A.N. Dolj, file 234/1907: 1) with the task of repressing the peasants’ uprising. Constantin Radu Geblescu continued to remain a well-known political figure, occupying important functions (Ana-Maria Rădulescu: 2004: 206) and further militated for the improvement of the living conditions from the rural regions, along with the educational process, “on his estate from Gebleşti building a primary school and a church, he donated wood and money for the building of schools and churches from Seaca, he granted scholarships for the poor students, he donated land for the village of Urdiniţa” (Ana-Maria Rădulescu, 2004: 206). Parallel with his political activity, he also had publicist preoccupations. Thus, he collaborated to the magazine called Economia Naţională, he was co- owner for Doljul newspaper and founded the conservative newspapers Reforma and Drapelul (Coord. Mariana Leferman, Gabriela Braun, Adrian Năstase, 2005: 140). 24 | Mirela-Minodora Mincă-Mălăescu

References

New Sources: 1. S.J.A.N. Dolj [Dolj County Department of the National Archives]. Fund: Register Office Collection – Commune of Carpen. (1869). 2. S.J.A.N. Dolj. Fund: Register Office Collection – City of Craiova. (1860- 1861). 3. S.J.A.N. Dolj. Fund: Dolj County Prefecture – the Administrative Department. (1899-1901, 1904-1907).

Published Sourses: 4. (1899). Dolj – Jiu County Presentation on situations addressed to the County Council for the ordinary session of 1899 de N. P. Guran, prefect of the county, Craiova. 5. (1900). Dojl – Jiu County Presentation on situations addressed to the County Council for the ordinary session of 1900 de N. P. Guran, prefect of the county, Craiova.

Press: 6. Adevărul, Bucharest. 7. Alarma, Craiova. 8. România Economică, Bucharest. 9. Tribuna, Craiova. 10. Voinţa naţională, Bucharest.

Working Instruments: 11. Ghiăcioiu, P. (1905). Anuarul Baroului [The Annual Bar]. Craiova. 12. Coord. Leferman, M., Braun, G. & Năstase, A. (2005). Repere spirituale româneşti. Un dicţionar al personalităţilor din Dolj [Witty Romanian Landmark. A Dictionary of Personalities from Dolj]. Craiova: Aius Publishing House.

General Works: 13. ***. (2003), Istoria Românilor [The Romanian History]. Romanian Academy treaty, vol. VII, tom II, coordinator Acad. Gheorghe Platon. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Publishing House. Special Works: 14. Băbălău, N., Ciobotea, D. & Zarzără, I. (2004). Din istoria instituţiilor administrative ale judeţului Dolj [From the history of the administrative institutions in Dolj County]. Craiova: Sitech Publishing House. 15. Bulei, I. (2000). Conservatori şi conservatorism [Conservative and Conservatism]. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Publishing House. Two conservative prefects: Nicolae P. Guran and Constantin Radu Geblescu| 25

16. Demetrescu, G. Mil. (2015). Istoria baroului Dolj de la 1864-1928 [The History of Dolj Bar from 1864-1928], 2nd edition, text and postface by Bianca Maria Carmen Predescu. Craiova: Aius Publishing House. 17. Mamina, I. & Bulei, I. (1994). Guverne şi Guvernanţi (1866-1916) [Governs and governors (1866-1916)]. Bucharest: Silex Publishing House. 18. Rădulescu, A.-M. (2004). Conservatorii în . Dolj, 1899-1913 [Conservatives in Oltenia. Dolj, 1899-1913]. Craiova: Aius Publishing House. 19. Rădulescu, A.-M. (2005). Conservatorii din judeţul Dolj între 1899-1922 [Conservatives from Dolj between 1899-1922]. Craiova: Aius Publishing House.